Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that an appeal against non-determination of the application had been received along with a consultation response from the Environment Agency.

Following the Officers presentation an Objector Emma Derham addressed the Committee.

A debate ensued and in response to questions raised, the Head of Service: Development Management and Building Control advised the appeal received was for non-determination and that the Council had missed the deadline for determination of the application because of resource limitations.

In response to a question regarding invoking the constitutional brake should Members be minded to refuse, the Head of Service stated that this would not be an available option due to related timescales. He explained that if Members were minded to refuse this application, a decision notice would not be issued due to the appeal in progress however this decision would form part of the information sent to the Planning Inspectorate by the Council.

Considerable concern was raised about Anglian Waters’ (AW) consultation response about not having the capacity to deal with foul water in the new development. The Head of Service explained that it was outside of the Council’s remit to refuse the application based on this, as a connection to a sewer in the UK could not be refused due to it being a matter of law and procedure and therefore it would be the responsibility of AW to resolve this.

Concerns regarding the traffic infrastructure and how the new development would impact the whole region were raised and it was highlighted that Essex County Council Highways had no objections to the proposal. Therefore, this would not be a valid reason for refusal.

In response to a discussion regarding the design of the development, Head of Service advised that refusing a scheme based on an illustrative plan may be difficult because it was not part of the formal consideration of the layout.

During the discussion that ensued and in response to concerns raised, proposals to refuse the application, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, were put forward from Councillors A Fittock and A S Fluker, but not seconded.

Following further debate, Councillor S J N Morgan then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation for reasons relating to the application being unsustainable. This proposal was duly seconded. Members then discussed reasons for refusal, and it was agreed that if agreed the refusal should refer to Policies D1, S1, S2, S8, I5 and D5. Councillor Morgan amended his proposal accordingly, and upon a vote being taken this was agreed.

RESOLVED that the Committee be minded to REFUSE this application be for the reasons discussed.